UCLA FEMBA(30k scholarship) vs USC full time (100% scholarship)

Hi all!

I am hoping to get some suggestions on which offer to choose.

I have around 3 years of accounting background, and I am applying for MBA to A) pivot into finance eg.valuation/M&A/corporate finance, or plan B) climb up the ladder faster in accounting.

I am not trying to get into IB post MBA, and to my knowledge both UCLA FEMBA and USC full time would work for my post MBA career goal.

pro of UCLA: 1) I can still work to pay for my tuitions and earn work experiences. 2)less risk and opportunity costs as it is a part time position and i don't need to worry about not getting a job post MBA 3) UCLA is pretty prestigious and I heard they treat part time students almost same as full time students

pro of USC: 1) As this is a full time program, I will have a full experience, will be more involved and have more networking 2) USC has a very strong Alumni network 3) I could probably get better finance position post MBA with internship, but at same time, there is also risk of not getting a job post MBA

In terms of cost, cost is lower in USC! (if we don't count opportunity cost in). I will need to pay housing/insurance/misc which is around 60k, while for UCLA, cost is around 100k for tuition+maybe 20k for misc expenses, but I also earn salary around 70k/year post tax to cover tuition.